Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems status and effectiveness in Manufacturing Industry

(1)

Abolfazl Ghahramani

Human Factors and Safety Behaviour Group Psychology of Work, Technology, and Organizations

Institute of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki, Finland

Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences

at the University of Helsinki in Auditorium 132, Psychologicum (Siltavuorenpenger 1 A) On the 3rd February 2017, at 12 o’clock

University of Helsinki Institute of Behavioural Sciences Studies in Psychology 125: 2016

Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Status and Effectiveness

in Manufacturing Industry

(2)

Supervisor

Professor Heikki Summala Institute of Behavioral Sciences University of Helsinki

Finland

Reviewers

Professor Jouni Kivistö-Rahnasto Department of Industrial Management

Center for Safety Management and Engineering Tampere University of Technology

Finland

Docent Simo Salminen

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Finland

Opponents

Professor Jouni Kivistö-Rahnasto Department of Industrial Management

Center for Safety Management and Engineering Tampere University of Technology

Finland

Professor Esko Keskinen Department of Psychology University of Turku Finland

ISSN-L 1798-842X ISSN 1798-842X

ISBN 978-951-51-2850-8 (Paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-2851-5 (PDF)

http://www.ethesis.helsinki.fi Unigrafia

Helsinki 2016

(3)

Abstract

Occupational injuries are a major problem worldwide and affect all countries, particularly developing ones. In recent decades, the application of approaches such as the Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) has led to the successful control of workplace injuries in high-income countries. The Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001 as a world- recognized OHSMS has gained considerable acceptance by a large number of organizations. However, few studies have examined the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance in certified organizations. This study consisted of four sub-studies, and was conducted to explore the effect of OHSAS 18001 on the occupational injury, safety climate, and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) practices in OHSAS 18001-certified companies compared with a control group in Iran. OHSAS 18001 practices were also examined in the certified companies, where interviews were conducted to explore the influencing factors on the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001. A negative binomial regression indicated no significant effect of OHSAS 18001 certification on the occupational injury rate. The second sub-study applied a new safety climate questionnaire, and a hierarchical regression indicated that the safety climate was influenced by the implementation of OHSAS 18001 and safety training. The third sub-study pointed to the better OHS practices of the certified companies compared with the control ones. The results also showed that adopting the OHSAS 18001 standard improved the documentation for the management of OHS, but did not lead to continuous improvement in the required practices. The evaluation of the collected evidence revealed the main reasons for a poor safety culture. The interviewees emphasized the internal and external influencing factors in the effectiveness of OHSAS including commitment of top management and the enforcement of OHS legal requirements. It can be concluded that the implementation of OHSAS 18001 in an organization is not a guarantee of improved safety performance and of the existence of a high-quality management system. This study suggests that certified companies should focus on proper improvement and maintenance of the implemented management systems by

(6)

escalating their commitment to the requirements of the established management systems and by participating their employees in OHSAS 18001 practices. This study also emphasized the importance of providing safety training for employees who work in the certified companies. These efforts may help the companies in the creation of a good safety culture and the transforming the paper systems into effective management systems to make improvement in OHS performance.

(7)

To

All Iranian employees who are injured in unsafe workplaces as a result of negligence of themselves and inappropriate decisions/actions of their managers to effective management of safety

(8)

Acknowledgments

First of all, I thank my dear Fatemeh, my life and my wife, without her encouragement, patience throughout the entire process of my study, understanding my frequent excuses, and taking care of our wonderful Ilya and sweet Roza, this thesis and my PhD study would be practically impossible or would have been delayed much longer. I love you all. I would also like to apologize for time periods, which I stole from you and our family. Because of all this and other reasons not mentioned here in detail, I dedicate this thesis to my loving wife, Fatemeh. I also express my warmest gratitude to my parents and my wife’s parents who have contributed to my PhD study by their support.

This thesis would not have been possible without the permission given to me by Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Helsinki. I am grateful that I had an opportunity to study in one of the leading European universities.

I want to express my deep and special thanks to my supervisor Professor Heikki Summala for his guidance, continuous support of my research, tireless response to my questions, and invaluable comments to the original publications derived from this thesis.

I am deeply grateful to the reviewers of my thesis, Professor Jouni Kivistö- Rahnasto and Docent Simo Salminen for their detailed evaluations and valuable comments and suggestions. I am honoured that Professor Jouni Kivistö-Rahnasto and Professor Esko Keskinen have kindly has agreed to act as the opponents in the public examination of my thesis.

I wish to express my warmest gratitude to my first supervisor Docent Timo Lajunen for accepting me as a PhD student at the University of Helsinki and my co- supervisor Associate Professor Türker Özkan for his support and guidance in the first year of my study and especially when I was in ODTÜ at the beginning of my PhD study. I also want to give my thanks to my Turkish friend Burak for his helps when I was in ODTÜ.

(9)

I would like to thank anonymous reviewers of the original articles and editors of journals in which the articles were published.

I would like to thank to the Urmia Medical Sciences University (UMSU), school of health, and department of occupational health engineering to give permission for my PhD study.

I wish to give my very special thanks to my friends and colleagues in Iran, Iraj for his help and support, Ramin, Mohammad, Bahloul, and Alireza for their help, friend lines, doing paperworks at UMSU and Urmia when I was out of country. I am also grateful to my Iranian friends in Helsinki, Reza, Yashar, Mohsen, and Farid for their friendship and help. Thank you all for making this scientific journey possible.

Gratitude is expressed to top managers of companies for giving permission to perform this study, and thanks are offered to all participants of the sub-studies included in my PhD study which has been completed with their help, openness, and willingness to share their experiences.

(10)

List of original publications

I. GHAHRAMANI, A., SUMMALA, H. A study of the effect of OHSAS 18001 on the occupational injury rate in Iran, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, doi:10.1080/17457300.2015.1088038.

II. GHAHRAMANI, A., KHALKHALI, H. R. (2015). Development and validation of a safety climate scale for manufacturing industry,Safety and Health at Work6 (2), 97–103.

III. GHAHRAMANI, A. (2016). An investigation of safety climate in OHSAS 18001- certified and non-certified organizations, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics22, 414-421.

IV. GHAHRAMANI, A. (2016). Factors that influence the maintenance and improvement of OHSAS 18001 in adopting companies: A qualitative study. Journal of Cleaner Production137, 283-290.

V. GHAHRAMANI, A. Diagnosis of poor safety culture as a main shortcoming in OHSAS 18001-certified organizations, Industrial Health(Submitted).

The articles are reprinted with the kind permission of the copyright holders.

(11)

Abbreviations

ANOVA Analysis of variance

AMOS Analysis of a MOment Structures

CB Certifying Body

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

JSA Job Safety Analysis

ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ISO International Standards Organization ISRS International Safety Rating System ISSO Iranian Social Security Organization

MISHA Method for Industrial Safety and Health activity Assessment NGO Non-governmental organization

NOSA National Occupational Safety Association OHS Occupational Health and Safety

OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series OHSMS Occupational Health and Safety Management System OIR Occupational Injury Rate

PCB Printed Circuit Board PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(12)

1 Introduction

1.1 General Introduction

It is estimated that 321,000 fatalities and 317 million nonfatal injuries occur for employees worldwide annually due to occupational accidents (ILO, 2013).

Occupational injuries fatality in the United States and the European Union are 4,628 and 4,395 respectively (BLS, 2013; Kotzeva, 2013). Prior studies estimated that the rate of occupational fatalities in the industrially developing countries is at least two to five times higher than the industrially developed countries such as North America and Western Europe (Concha-Barrientos et al., 2004). According to the last report of Iranian Social Security Organization (ISSO), 19,907 occupational accidents occurred for insured employees (n = 12,764,566) by the organization in Iranian workplaces (n = 1,214,277) in 2015 (ISSO, 2016). A scientific estimation showed that Iran had about 23,000,000 active workers who experienced 3,068 fatal injuries and 2,885,714 non-fatal injuries ( GD\V¶ DEVHQFH LQ 7KH annual occupational fatality rate was 13.3 per 100,000 in the same year (Hämäläinen et al., 2009).

The high and growing number of occupational injuries in recent decades has led to the creation and application of approaches such as Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) inter aliafor effective management of safety and health. Dalrymple et al. (1998) pointed out that the use of OHSMSs had been a successful approach for control of workplace injuries in high-income countries.

Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001 is a worldwide- recognized voluntary OHSMS that published in 1999. Since the publication of this standard, a large number of organizations have implemented it worldwide (BSI, 2007, 2009; Chang & Liang, 2009; Hohnen & Hasle, 2011). In line with other workplaces, some Iranian organizations have had an interest in the implementation of the requirements of this standard with the aim of control and prevention of occupational injuries (Frick, 2011).

(13)

The implementation of OHSMSs does not guarantee the improvement of safety performance, and several factors influence the effectiveness of OHSMSs in organizations. These factors include the senior management commitment to safety, employee involvement, communication, safety training, how the adopting organizations implement the requirements of the management standard or guideline, the maintenance of the management system, the features of the interested enterprises, and the external environment (Gallagher, 2000; Bluff, 2003; LaMontagne et al., 2004; Robson et al., 2007; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2009;

Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012a).

Researchers have investigated the quality of OHSMSs through the assessment of the association between proxy measures and intermediate outcomes of safety performance, such as safety climate, employees’ beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors (Robson et al., 2007). The applied methodologies for the studies have been criticized by their subjective character (Ramli et al., 2011; Abad et al., 2013).

Despite the considerable acceptance of organizations for implementation of the OHSAS 18001 standard, few studies have examined the effectiveness of these interventions. Assessment of the safety literature shows that there is no study that has determined the effectiveness of implemented systems in OHSAS 18001- certified companies in Iran. Thus, it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of the systems in the companies. The aim of this thesis is to determine the effect of OHSAS 18001 on the objective measures of Occupational Injury Rate (OIR) and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) practices in addition to the subjective measure of safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified companies compared with control companies in Iran. It is also to clarify the status of OHSAS 18001 through the assessment of OHSAS 18001 practices and to explore the influencing factors on the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 in the certified companies.

1.2 Safety management

Earlier studies have identified the significant effect of management factors in the safety performance of organizations. According to OHS legislations and

(14)

regulations, management (employer) is responsible for assuring safe working conditions for all employees and for accidents that occur in workplace due to the contribution of the events to unsafe acts and conditions that are under the control of the management (IRIC, 1990; OSHA, 2015). Moreover, supervisors and front- line-managers are key individuals in accident prevention. Obadia et al. (2007) have indicated that hazardous organizations must include the safety management in their strategic policy to improve safety performance. Comparison of organizations with low and high accident rates revealed the significance of the management commitment to safety and the involvement of managers and supervisors in safety practices to accident prevention (Bentley & Haslam, 2001). Lack of leadership, commitment, competence, consultation, or supervision can make a hazardous environment that can increase the occurrence probability of accidents (Vassie &

Lucas, 2001; Makin & Winder, 2008). Reason (1993) also identified the faulty management decisions as latent errors for the occurrence of accidents. Therefore, it should be an adequate level of safety management in place to achieve a satisfactory safety performance in an organization.

Safety management plays a significant role in achieving and maintaining a high level of safety (Bottani et al., 2009). Good safety management is necessary to achieve an acceptable level of safety, to minimize the safety risks and losses, as well as to improve the whole safety performance, productivity, economic, and financial results (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012b). Safety management is usually regarded as the aspect of the total organizational management that involves a broad range of technical, human, and organizational functions to promote a strong safety culture and to achieve a good safety performance (Harms-Ringdahl, 2004; Grote, 2012).

The main purpose of safety management is to ensure that an organization maintains an acceptable level of safety throughout the life cycle of systems in its premises (Van den Berghe et al., 2006). It relates to the actual practices, roles, and functions of an organization to create and maintain a safe situation (Vinodkumar &

Bhasi, 2011). It is also a great profit to the manufacturing industry (Chen et al., 2009). Several factors such as the requirements of safety regulations and

(15)

legislation, safety culture, company size, and business type influence the safety management in an organization (McGuinness & Utne, 2014). The common safety management practices associated with the safety performance of an organization include worker participation; hiring practices; reward systems; management commitment; giving high rank to safety officers; personally engagement of managers in safety activities; providing a high-quality training for new employees;

existing employees frequently received safety training; safety posters demonstrated for identifying hazards in workstations; clearly defined safety procedures; workers and supervisors communicated about OHS on a daily basis; periodic safety inspections; giving a higher priority to safety in meetings and decisions concerning work practices, and proper investigation of accidents (Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010;

Vredenburgh, 2002).

Two types of safety management that commonly used in organizations include the traditional (program) and systematic approaches (Herrero et al., 2002). The following sections provide a brief description of these approaches.

1.2.1 Traditional (program) approach

A traditional safety management approach is a control-oriented approach to separately analyze workers, technology, and the work context (Costella et al., 2009;

Hadjimanolis & Boustras, 2013). Workers were directed and controlled to complete the requirements of safety standards and regulations. The safety laws and government’ regulations enforced and workers get information about the new safety regulations. The managers of the organization, who apply the traditional safety management approach, use their authority to ensure compliance with safety laws and regulations in order to improve the level of safety (Herrero et al., 2002;

Hadjimanolis & Boustras, 2013).

The programmatic safety management is always unable to enhance the performance of safety due to the existence of some shortcomings. The ultimate aim of these programs is complying with the technical requirements in a workplace to achieve short-term results. The programs are usually not integrated with the rest of

(16)

practices of an organization. Safety director; safety committees; safety meetings; a list of rules pertaining to safety; posting of slogans and posters, and safety incentives are the common elements of traditional safety management programs.

Safety director is a key person to handle the safety programs and usually he/she does not have the authority to make changes in an organization (Herrero et al., 2002). There are OHS legislations and regulations in most of countries that required employers to obey their requirements in workplaces.

According to Iranian labor law (article 85), two governmental bodies undertake the enactment and enforcement of OHS regulations. The Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MHME) is responsible for enforcement of occupational health legislation, regulation, and standards. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs is accountable for enforcement of legal issues related to occupational and technical safety (IRIC, 1990; Vigeh et al., 2011). All employers obliged to provide safe equipments and facilities for employees, provide training for them to operate safely with the equipments, perform OHS measurements and inspections, and conduct health check-ups for employees (Jahangiri et al., 2016; IRIC, 1990). Companies having 50-499 employees obliged for establishment of a worker’s health house to provide OHS services and first aid for employees (Jahangiri et al., 2016). The existing regulation obliged Iranian organizations to comply with the OHS regulations and legislations; however, it is not required to follow international standards and guidelines e.g., OHSAS 18001. Researchers discussed the improper enforcement of OHS regulation in developing countries (Giuffrida et al., 2002;

Rosenstock et al., 2005) and it is identified as an important barrier to establish OHS in Iran (Arastoo et al., 2015).

1.2.2 Systemic approach

The concept of OHSMS has become common over the past three decades and a high number of organizations have implemented the requirements of various OHSMS standards and guidelines for the effective management of OHS worldwide (Robson et al., 2007). An OHSMS is a set of policies, strategies, practices,

(17)

procedures, roles, and functions to control OHS hazards and to minimize possible damage and losses in an adopted organization. It reflects the organization’s commitment to OHS, and it is more than a paper system of OHS policies and procedures. The purpose of an OHSMS is to increase the awareness, understanding, motivation, and commitment of employees as well as a positive impact on their attitude and behaviors (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2007).

The main purpose of an OHSMS is the identification of occupational injury sources in the production process and application of countermeasures before the occurrence of injuries (Zanko & Dawson, 2012). It also aims to continuously improve the OHS performance (Rocha, 2010). An OHSMS reflects the perception of employees about the importance of OHS in an adopting organization (Bottani et al., 2009). An OHSMS is an aspect of the overall management function regarding OHS (Santos-Reyes & Santos-Reyes, 2002). A safety management system focuses on the commitment of management to safety and the involvement of employees in the management of safety through training, information sharing, and participation in safety-related decisions (Hadjimanolis & Boustras, 2013). The OHSMS-adopting organizations can easily comply with the relevant OHS legislation (Fernández- Muñiz et al., 2009). Hsu et al. (2010) have specified three main characteristic of an OHSMS as systematic (activities of the system are in accordance with a pre- determined plan, and apply in a consistent manner throughout the organization), proactive (emphasizing prevention of adverse events before their occurrence, through hazards identification and risk control and mitigation measures), and explicit (the adopting organization visibly document safety management activities, and they perform independently from other management activities).

A key purpose of an OHSMS is to develop a systematic structure in an adopting organization to ultimately reduce OHS risks and to prevent the occurrence of unwanted events. The failure of an OHSMS to make these changes might be resulted from the lack of anticipation and control of all possible work situations;

slowly adopting to changing situations or uncertainties due to the rigid, controlled, and complicated structures. Human errors of the personnel who involved in an

(18)

OHSMS activity can be associated with the failure of an OHSMS in an adopting organization (Wachter and Yorio, 2014).

The OHSMS certification is increasingly being used by organizations to document and develop conformance with applicable OHS legal obligations and the requirements of the adopting OHSMS standard or guideline. It also demonstrates an organization’s management commitment to improving the safety performance (Granerud & Rocha, 2011; Santos et al., 2013). The certification is an important obligation for remaining competitive in manufacturing (Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2011). Improvement of working conditions, ensuring compliance with regulations, notice to workers about the OHS risks and dangers at work identified as the main benefits of OHSMS certification in Portuguese small and medium enterprises (Santos et al., 2013). It is also identified that lack of adequate safety management system is associated with the occurrence of a great majority of industrial disasters (Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010).

The implementation of the requirements of an OHSMS standard or guideline in an organization triggers a learning process for improvements in OHS to undergone systematic safety controls and to design a benchmarking process (Rocha, 2010).

Zanko and Dawson (2012) stated that it is difficult to operationalize an OHSMS in an organization. Based on the previous studies, the authors also identified the integration of OHSM into other business activities, commitment of management to safety, effective communication, employee involvement and consultation as main elements of an effective OHSMS. Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2009) concluded that well-developed OHSMSs in adopting organizations had a positive influence on the quality of the firm’s products and services, productivity, customer satisfaction, the firm’s reputation and image, and the firm’s degree of innovation. It is also able to reduce the interrupts in an adopting organization due to undesirable incidents e.g., accidents.

In addition, the organizations which implemented the requirements of an OHSMS should combine the system with a genuine change of safety culture in order to avoid the existence of a paper system. Because such system unable to

(19)

improve safety performance (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2007). According to the past studies, Rocha (2010) stated that implementation of an OHSMS had a significant impact on the reducing of direct health care costs and improved productivity. The application of an OHSMS also enables a company to develop policy statements and to perform risk assessments. In addition, the implementation of the requirements of an OHSMS affects the different organizational groups to interact in the process and to learn from it that how to deal better with OHS problems.

1.2.2.1 Mandatory and voluntary OHSMS

Since the 1980s, the approach for management of safety in most western economies was changed from programmatic, reactive, and command-control perspective to a more self-regulatory model, proactive, and process-based management standards (Gunningham & Johnstone, 1999; Gallagher & Underhill, 2012). Therefore, the OHSMS approach has been the main international strategy for safety improvement in workplaces (Frick et al., 2000). Mandatory and voluntary OHSMSs are mainly differed in their specifications to manage the OHS.

Regulations of mandatory OHSMSs are public politics codified into laws that aim to protect employees from OHS risk by employers. The ultimate objective of these OHSMSs is a no risk workplace and defined by OHS results. Labor inspectorate supervised these OHSMSs and ultimately decided in a court. Voluntarily OHSMSs are managed through correct procedures and verified by audits and certificates (Frick, 2011).

Despite the considerable acceptance of OHSMS to manage OHS in a systematic way worldwide, some authors criticized the use of OHSMS. They claimed that the implementation of the requirements of an OHSMS standard or guideline in a company is incompatible with genuine employee engagement in OHS activities and will lead to the bureaucratization of OHS issues. It can hide OHS problems from viewing, mislead the adopted organization into understanding that OHS is managed in an effective way, and divert the efforts and resources of an adopting company away from OHS towards the OHSMS itself. Adopting organizations

(20)

cannot be used OHSMS as substitutes for OHS regulation (Rocha, 2010).

Criticisms for mandatory OHSMSs are being too bureaucratic, which results in excessive high administrative costs for employers. It has been reported the lack of compliance with OHS regulations. The voluntary OHSMSs have been criticized for reducing the scope of systems to safety. The voluntary OHSMSs mostly sold on the market. The regulated OHS cannot replace with voluntary OHSMSs (Frick 2011).

According to prior studies, Podgorski (2015) stated that voluntary OHSMS models are too formal, frequently bureaucratic, and paperwork-intensive. The compliance of OHSMS models is checked through auditing that conducted by certification bodies based on the models’ requirements, but they did not assess the OHS performance of these systems.

1.2.2.2 OHSAS 18001

Several OHSMS standards and guidelines published in recent decades. The number of OHSMS-adopting enterprises has also increased worldwide, especially after the publication of the OHSAS 18001 standard in 1999 (Frick, 2011). OHSAS 18001 is a worldwide-recognized OHSMS that formulated by international certifying bodies based on a British standard (BS 8800) (BSI, 2007). This BS standard as an international guideline document provides a common specification for any type of companies to comply with the requirements of an OHSMS. The main objective of this standard is minimizing OHS risks and assuring the protection of human resources. The requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard are based on Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) cycle, and this feature makes it more compatible with other international standards, e.g., ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 (De Oliveira, 2013).

OHSAS 18001 establishes a framework to consistently identify and control OHS risks, decrease the probability of workplace accidents, assist compliance with applicable OHS legislations, facilitate the management of OHS risks and enhance overall performance in adopting firms (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012b). The OHSAS 18001 standard offers a good framework for improvement of safety performance in organizations. It is directed to control the OHS risks in adopting

(21)

organizations in a proactive way and improve the organizations’ OHS performance (Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2011). The implementation of the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard is a valid mechanism for improving safety conditions and business performance in the adopting workplace (Abad, et al., 2013). The study of Hohnen and Hasle (2011) in a large Danish manufacturing business revealed that the certification by OHSAS 18001 creates and promotes an auditable work environment.

If a voluntary OHSMS e.g., OHSAS 18001 design and implement in an appropriate way, it can improve the safety performance (Fan & Lo, 2012).

According to the past studies, De Oliveira (2013) listed the main challenges for the implementation of OHSAS 18001 in organizations. They include low educational levels of workers, complexity of procedures and instructions, internal communication failures, low involvement by other sectors, lack of performance indicators, allocation of the responsibility of the OHSMS to the health or safety department alone, lack of management commitment, low awareness indices among workers, failure to establish safety and health as a strategic objective, and low involvement by the human resources area in training efforts. The study of Chen et al. (2009) stressed on the role of top management commitment to provide the necessary financial resources in the successful implementation of OHSAS 18001. It concluded that decisions for the implementation of OHSAS 18001 in Taiwan Printed Circuit Board (PCB) manufactures affected by domestic and foreign customer requirement, improvement of company image, and top management requirement. These authors also identified the top management promises and supports as a key factor for successful implementation of OHSAS 18001.

The study of Fan and Lo (2012) in 44 textile and fashion businesses revealed that the OHSAS 18001 adopting firms showed a significantly higher rate of sales growth. Lo et al. (2011) found that management systems such as OHSAS 18001 inter aliawere not correlated with the certified company's financial performance in 193 Chinese manufacturing organizations when the reason for adaptation is customer pressure. The study of Abad et al. (2013) in Spanish OHSAS 18001-

(22)

certified companies revealed that these companies were more likely to exhibit better safety outcomes and higher performance compared to non-certified firms.

Nevertheless, empirical evidence examining the relation between OHSAS 18001 certification, safety outcomes, and business performance provides inconclusive results.

Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2011) studied the safety management practices in eight chemical businesses in India. They found that employees in firms with OHSAS 18001 had the highest level of safety management practices and a better self- reported safety behavior compared with employees working in non-OHSAS firms.

In 131 OHSAS-certified companies in Spain, Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2012a) indicated that the senior management commitment and communication positively influenced the safety performance (safety behavior, employee satisfaction, and business competitiveness).

1.2.3 Effectiveness of an OHSMS

Organizations typically implement safety interventions such as OHSMS inter alia to achieve OHS goals. These organizations should consider efficiency ‘do things right’ and effectiveness ‘do the right things’ of it. The efficiency refers to obtaining the best safety performance from applying available resources. The effectiveness is the extent to which safety objectives are achieved (Aksorn & Hadikusumo, 2008).

Further, effect is any changes which take place due to implementation of a safety measure in a workplace (adopted from Oxford dictionary). Most of OHSMSs aim to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses, but the objectives in paper differ from practice (Frick, 2011). Robson et al. (2007) did not find a clear indication in their systematic review to make a clear conclusion in favor or against the implementation of a mandatory or voluntary OHSMS. Based on the study of Gardner (2000) that showed the failure rate of quality management systems ranging from 67% to 93%, Robson et al. (2007) expected that the failure rate of OHSMSs would be at least as high. Therefore, the implementation of an OHSMS in an organization does not guarantee the improvement of safety performance.

(23)

The level of OHSMS effectiveness depends on the commitment of all levels of an organization, especially the top management, management promises and support, employee involvement, how the adopting organizations implement the requirements of the standard, the features of the interested enterprises, and the external environment (Gallagher, 2000; LaMontagne, Barbeau et al., 2004; BSI, 2007; Robson et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2009; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012a). In addition, factors such as training, communication, preventive and emergency planning, the monitoring and review of the activities, the degree of OHSMS implementation, the features of the employed OHSMS, financial resources, the number of employees available to perform OHS activities, and the maintenance of the system affect the effectiveness of an OHSMS in an organization (Gallagher, 2000; Bluff, 2003; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2009; 2012a).

A good OHSMS must be integrated into day-to-day operations of an adopting organization. The preventive approach in OHSMS must be more organizational and strategic due to the significant role of the human component in the causal chain of accidents occurred in a workplace. The improvement of an OHSMS should be regarded as means of creating awareness, understanding, motivation and commitment among all personnel, who worked in an organization (Fernández- Muñiz et al., 2009). It seems that the characteristics of an adopting organization impact the successfulness of an OHSMS. The implementation and development of an OHSMS are demanding for both individuals and organizations. The sustained partnership, extensive training and support, and organizational receptivity to change are necessary to have a successful OHSMS (Rocha, 2010). An OHSMS identified as a social system and the success of it rely on the employees who operate the OHSMS. The scope of an implemented OHSMS, the knowledge of employees about it, and the commitment of them to operate the requirements of the OHSMS can impact the success of an OHSMS (Lee & Harrison, 2000).

According to the earlier studies, Abad et al. (2013) categorized the drivers of the adaptation to the requirements of an OHSMS standard or guideline into two external and internal factors. External factors include complying with suppliers’

(24)

demands, strengthen relations with different stakeholders, OHSMS certification as a market signal for entry into new markets, customers’ requirements, and by top management decisions related to the improvement of corporate image. The authors stated that the reduction of occupational accidents and the increase of productivity were not found as affecting factors for the adaptation with an OHSMS. The internal influencing factors include the introduction of a preventive safety framework to control OHS risks, the declining number of accidents and their economic costs, decreasing material losses and interruptions in the production process, and improvement of the well-being of employees. The functioning of an OHSMS and mechanisms of enforcement for OHS used by an OHSMS’ adopting organization is also influencing the performance of safety (Rocha, 2010).

1.2.4 Measurement of OHSMS’ effectiveness

The effectiveness assessment of OHS interventions will help organizations to determine whether they have used their resources to achieve OHS objectives. The ultimate aim of organizations in conducting the interventions is the prevention of occupational injuries and diseases (Rivara & Thompson, 2000). Organizations attempt to apply prevention strategies in an effective way; however, some enterprises do not measure their effectiveness. Frick (2011) stated that the monitoring of OHS outcomes is essential in OHSMS’ effectiveness studies to determine whether the management system is effective in practice. Robson et al.

(2007) identified that researchers commonly interested to evaluate the quality of OHSMSs through using the safety performance measures associated with intermediate outcomes such as safety climate and safety behaviors.

Several factors, including employee participation in safety activities, safety training, the commitment of managers and their involvement in safety, as well as good communication between managers and employees are related to lower rates of occupational injuries in organizations. The organizations with low OIRs typically investigate their accidents, have good recordkeeping and reward systems, use safety rules and procedures to perform activities in a safe manner, and employ a

(25)

feedback system for safety management practices that affect the safety performance. Hazard identification, machine guarding, the existence of a safety committee, housekeeping, and the supply of personal protective equipment enhances the safety performance in workplaces (Harper et al., 1996; Shannon et al., 1997; Bentley & Haslam, 2001; Mearns et al., 2003; Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2011).

National regulation and management systems also influence the safety performance (Kjellén, 2012).

The evaluation of safety performance in an adopting organization is one of the important requirements of OHSMSs such as OHSAS 18001 that provides useful information about the quality of the system (BSI 2007; Sgourou et al., 2010). An organization certified by OHSAS 18001 should employ an adequate level of safety management and a positive safety culture in order to achieve a satisfactory safety performance, and which reflects the visible commitment of management to safety (Vecchio-Sadus & Griffiths, 2004; Van den Berghe et al., 2006). Previous studies indicated that the effective safety management depends on the existing safety culture of an organization and on safety management practices considered as indicators for safety culture of the upper management (Kennedy & Kirwan, 1998;

Mearns et al., 2003). Moreover, the existence of a positive safety culture has demonstrated a positive influence on safety performance in many industrial settings (O'Toole, 2002).

Safety performance is traditionally evaluated through the application of statistical methods for the analysis of accident and injury data. The indicators of accidents or injuries include the number, frequency, severity, rates, and their costs that are usually referred as lagging (retrospective) indicators. These indicators focus on safety outcomes and measure the failures of safety programs. Recently, leading (prospective) indicators such as safety audits, hazard analysis, and safety climate have been applied by OHSMS adopting organizations to measure the success of a system (Cooper & Phillips, 2004; Yule et al., 2007; Ma & Yuan, 2009).

Safety climate typically employs as a leading indicator for assessing of safety performance in organizations. Of course, Kongsvik et al. (2011) found it as both

(26)

lagging and leading indicators. Although, it is common to separately employ the lagging and leading indicators for measurement of safety performance, Cooper &

Phillips (2004) suggested the application of a combination of these indicators for measuring the impacts of safety programs on an organization. Hohnen and Hasle (2011) stated that it is necessary to evaluate a certified management system through the application of scale estimation in work environments and the qualitative assessment of the influence of an OHSMS. Certified organizations usually apply the quantitative results of audits to measure the performance of an implemented OHSMS (Robson et al., 2010).

A certified organization should apply systematic means to achieve and maintain a high level of safety performance (Obadia et al., 2007). The evaluation of safety management factors is a preferred approach for the assessment of safety performance, and provides information regarding failures of ongoing safety programs prior to the occurrence of an accident (Tinmannsvik & Hovden, 2003).

Application of an active monitoring system can measure the success of a certified management system before accidents occur and can reinforce the achievement of the organization in a positive way (Teo & Ling, 2006). Failure to conduct the proper analysis of safety performance in a certified organization may ignore the existing shortcomings of the system and lead to the occurrence of adverse events.

Despite the numerous advantages of safety performance assessment in certified organizations, some certified companies failed to conduct a proper evaluation of safety performance (Chang & Liang, 2009). OHSAS 18001-certified companies should evaluate the safety performance of their systems internally and externally.

However, some fail to conduct proper evaluations and few studies have examined the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 interventions. In their systematic review, Robson et al. (2007) identified a small number of studies on OHSMS interventions that showed positive effects on safety climate and injury rates in organizations. The study of Chen et al. (2009) in PCB manufactures in Taiwan showed that poor personnel cooperation, increased equipment investment, and difficulties in selecting performance indicators were the key influencing failure factors thorough

(27)

the of OHSAS 18001. Chang and Liang (2009) stated that most of the OHSAS 18001-certified organizations in Taiwan had compliances regarding the increases of paperwork, cost, and the workload of OHS. These companies weakly follow the certification and inappropriately evaluate the safety performance. In addition, several authors criticized the application of lagging indicators due to shortcomings such as under-reporting and measuring the system failures without disclosing cause-effect relationships of these indicators (Cooper & Phillips, 2004).

Furthermore, Hopkins (2000) advised that an OHSMS audit does not guarantee the expected level of safety in a certified organization. Despite the interest of most organizations in implementing the requirements of an OHSMS, there is no clear consensus on its effectiveness (Goh & Chua, 2013).

1.2.4.1 Occupational injury

ISSO (2011) defines occupational accidents as those accidents that occur for an insured person while working in a workplace, being in a mission assigned by employer, attempting to rescue other injured persons, commuting from home to work or vice versa (ISSO, 2011). Iranian companies usually register sever occupational injuries that occur during work hours resulting more than three days away from work. The rate of injury reduction is an important indicator for the measurement of intervention effectiveness, and it is the principal criterion for OHSMS success (Gallagher, 2000). This measurement can be carried out using a quantitative measure as well as by determining the association between an interventional program and the injury rate (Iyer et al., 2005; Robson et al., 2007).

Therefore, the measurement of safety performance enables organizations to become aware of the effectiveness of implemented interventions such as OHSAS 18001 in improving the safety performance level.

Furthermore, a limited number of investigations have considered OHSMS effectiveness in reducing occupational injury (LaMontagne et al., 2004; Robson et al., 2007; Fan & Lo, 2012). Past studies have found that an OHSMS has a positive and direct effect on decreasing the injury rates in organizations (O'Toole, 2002;

(28)

Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2007). Further, Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2011) stated that organizations certified with OHSAS 18001 had better safety management practices and fewer accidents. Bottani et al. (2009) found that safety management system adaptors experienced substantially lower accident rates. The development of an OHSMS is also an important factor in reducing occupational injuries. Likewise, Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2009) indicated that organizations with more developed systems experience a lower number and severity of injuries.

In contrast, some authors have claimed that OHSMS interventions are not effective enough. Eisner and Leger (1988) demonstrated that the international safety rating system (ISRS) was not effective in the improving safety and decreasing the fatality rate in South African mines. Frick (2011) stated that the ISRS does not significantly correlate with fatalities and reported accidents. The European agency for safety and health at work studied the effects of OHSMSs in 11 companies around Europe. The number of occupational accidents decreased in five companies after the implementation of an OHSMS and increased in one of the firms (EASHW 2002). Frick and Kempa (2011) stated that the implementation of an OHSMS in an organization will not guarantee the prevention of severe occupational accidents, and they pointed out the occurrence of an accident in a Swedish company with a fatal outcome and a large explosion in Esso plant as examples.

1.2.4.2 Safety climate

An effective OHSMS results from the combination of the system structure and the safety culture of an adopting organization (Santos-Reyes & Santos-Reyes, 2002).

An OHSMS adopting organization must pay attention to human factors as system components and create a positive safety climate in which every employee is convinced of the importance of safety acts accordingly (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012a). Safety climate is an important leading indicator that reflects the safety performance of an organization. This also has employed to predict the safety- related outcomes such as safety behavior and occupational accidents/injuries

(29)

(Meliá et al., 2008; Olsen, 2010). However, few studies have investigated the effect of safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified companies (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012a).

Earlier studies found that the frequent dimensions of safety climate include management commitment to safety, employee involvement, safety communication, safety training, safety systems (e.g. compliance), risk, competence, work pressure, procedures and rules, supportive and supervisory environment (Flin et al., 2000;

Rundmo & Hale 2003; Seo et al., 2004; Evans et al., 2007; Guldenmund, 2007).

However, still there is no consensus regarding safety climate dimensions among researchers.

Safety climate is distinct from safety culture, and it is a more preferred measure to assess the safety performance of an organization (Seo et al., 2004). Safety climate considered as a sub-constituent or superficial characteristic of safety culture, defined as a snapshot of safety culture, and emphasized on employees’

shared perceptions concerning to the safety management (Tharaldsen et al., 2008;

Zohar, 2008; Lu & Yang, 2011). Safety climate typically measures using a questionnaire that designed to ask questions from active employees in an organization regarding their top managers’ commitment to safety (Guldenmund, 2000; DeJoy et al., 2004; Tharaldsen et al., 2008). However, safety culture is a deeper phenomenon that reflects an organization’ values, norms, beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding safety (Flin et al., 2000; Salminen &

Seppälä, 2005; Tharaldsen et al., 2008). Safety culture measures by the application of qualitative methods such as performing interviews with employees and safety audit (Tharaldsen et al., 2008). This kind of evaluation does not only need more time, but also difficult to conduct.

Researchers have studied the association between safety climate and safety performance in various industries (Zohar, 1980; Mearns et al., 2003; Yule et al., 2007; Ma & Yuan, 2009; Allen et al., 2010). This interest especially increased after introducing safety management systems to study the role of safety climate in the prevention of occupational accidents/injuries (Hahn & Murphy, 2008). They found

(30)

that positive level of safety climate is correlated with accident rates (Varonen &

Mattila, 2000; Yule et al., 2007; Ma & Yuan, 2009; Allen et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2010). Other researchers applied safety climate scores to predict safety outcomes such as accident/injury rates and safety behavior (Meliá et al., 2008; Olsen, 2010).

Earlier studies suggest that safety climate is linked to organizational and individual factors in various industries. O'Toole (2002) indicated that the implementation of organizational safety interventions resulted in changes in the safety climate. Ma and Yuan (2009) claimed that the improvement of workplace safety in any type of industries depends on the safety climate. DeJoy et al. (2004) demonstrated that adopting with the elements of a safety management system such as safety policies and programs, communication, and organizational support enhance the safety climate. Fernández-Muñiz et al. (2012a) suggested that it is necessary for OHSAS 18001-certified companies to have a satisfactory level of safety climate in their workplaces to achieve the goal of zero accidents. They also emphasized the importance of communication and management commitment. A review of 13 empirical OHSMS studies by Robson et al. (2007) revealed that the safety climate improvement was evidence for the effectiveness of the voluntary OHSMS interventions. However, those authors did not find enough evidence in their review to make a clear conclusion for or against the implementation of voluntary or mandatory OHSMSs. DeJoy et al. (2010) found that OHS policies and programs have a positive effect on safety climate and organizational commitment in a large US retailer. According to the past studies, Yule et al. (2007) stated that employee perceptions of safety climate directly and indirectly associated with safety outcomes. The above mentioned studies generally suggest that a positive safety climate is an important organizational asset and it can influence the safety performance of an organization.

1.2.4.3 Safety practices

The integration of an OHSMS into the daily practices of an adopting organization and the encouragement of employees to involve in OHS practices is necessary to

(31)

achieve an effective system (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2007). Researchers found that the effective safety management depends on the existing safety culture and on safety management practices in an organization (Kennedy & Kirwan, 1998; Mearns et al., 2003). The safety culture reflects the observable practices that conducted by all organizational members towards improving OHS on a daily basis (Vecchio- Sadus & Griffiths, 2004). The study of Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2011) in India found the highest level of safety management practices and better self-reported safety behaviors for employees in firms with OHSAS 18001 compared with employees working in non-OHSAS firms.

Audit is one of the important elements of an OHSMS (Cox, 1996). The international Standards Organization (ISO) defines an audit as ‘‘systematic, independent, and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which audit criteria are fulfilled’’ (ISO, 2003). The safety audit is a structured process whereby required information is gathered regarding the efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability of an OHSMS to identify potential OHS problems and new plans is formulated for conducting corrective actions (HSE, 1997). It is also a significant way for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a certified system. Herrero et al. (2002) suggested the application of audit to a more precise measurement of the actions performed by top management in an organization. Two types of audit may apply in OHSAS 18001- certified organizations. The first approach referred as compliance audit and evaluates the conformance level of a certified system with the audit criteria.

Another approach is the auditing for continuous improvement. This approach provides recommendations and suggestions for the improvement of a certified system in addition to the conformance assessment with the OHSAS 18001 requisites (Power & Terziovski, 2007; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012b).

Prior studies have identified the failures of an auditing process that should be considered during the audit process to increase the reliability of an audit. These failures include errors or intended fraud by the auditor, undue influence arising from the financial interest of auditor in a company, improper influence caused by

(32)

personal auditor-client relationships, lack of employee involvement in the auditing process; paperwork in the company due to the audit; unintended goal displacement of audit scoring; the confusion of OHSMS audit criteria, and inadequate independence and skill of OHSMS auditor (Tackett et al., 2004; Blewett &

O’Keeffe, 2011). These failures show that conducting an audit cannot guarantee the existence of a high-quality system and a good safety performance in an OHSAS 18001-adopting organization. A good example is the occurrence of catastrophic accident reported by Hopkins in 2000. Thus, the utilization of a policy by the accreditation bodies for checking the quality of OHSAS 18001 audits conducted by Certifying Bodies (CBs) could identify the shortcomings of the audit process and help to increase their quality.

(33)

2 Aims of the present study

The overall aim of this study was to investigate the status of systematic safety management in OHSAS 18001-certified companies, the effect of OHSAS 18001 certification on the OIR, safety climate, and OHS practices in the certified companies compared to a group of companies that implemented the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard, and to explore the facilitators and barriers of maintenance and improvement of OHSAS 18001’ effectiveness in the certified companies.

The four sub-studies forming this thesis include the following research questions:

x Is OHSAS 18001 had an effect on the OIR in OHSAS 18001-certified companies compared with a group of companies that had not implemented OHSAS 18001? (Sub-Study I)

x How to develop a safety climate scale specific to Iranian manufacturing companies? (Sub-Study II)

x Is OHSAS 18001 had an influence on safety climate in the companies? (Sub- Study II)

x Are there differences between the certified and the companies that had not implemented OHSAS 18001 in regard to the average OHS practices? (Sub- Study III)

x What is the compliance level of OHSMS in the certified companies comparing with the OHSAS 18001 standard? (Sub-Study III)

x What are the influencing factors, barriers, and facilitators of OHSAS 18001’

effectiveness in the certified companies? (Sub-Study IV)

(34)

3 Methods

3.1 Overall study design

The present study was conducted in six manufacturing companies and consisted of four sub-studies. The first and second sub-studies applied quantitative methods and evaluated the safety performance in three certified companies, which implemented the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard and were certified by a CB compared to three companies that had not implemented the standard requirements in their sites through the assessment of occupational injury and safety climate. The third sub-study performed in all six companies and used both quantitative and qualitative methods. The fourth sub-study used qualitative data and conducted in the certified companies. The written permissions have gotten from the companies to conduct this study. Table 1 shows overall information about the companies, participants, measures, and the statistical analyses used in each sub-study. Different study designs and information used in the sub-studies. Figure 1 presents the design of sub-studies and source of information.

Table 1. General information about the sub-studies of the present study

Sub-studies Participants Measures Statistical Analyses*

Sub-study I Three OHSAS 18001-certified and three control companies

Occupational injury data t-test

Generalized linear mixed models (negative binomial)

Repeated measures ANOVA Sub-study II A total of 24 OHS experts

A total of 26 employees

Safety climate scale Descriptive Statistics A total of 269 employees Safety climate scale Factor analysis (EFA and CFA) A total of 269 employees Safety climate scale

Demographic information form

t-test ANOVA

Hierarchical regression Sub-study III Three OHSAS 18001-certified

and three control companies

OHSAS 18001 audit checklist

MISHA

Descriptive Statistics t-test

A total of key informants (n = 3), managers (n = 15), supervisors (n = 10), and workers (n = 40) from the all six companies

Interview guide Content analysis

Sub-study IV A total of 16 managers from the certified companies

Interview guide Grounded Theory

*All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, and only AMOS was used to conduct CFA.

(35)

35

Figure 1. Study design and source of information

Studies Sub-study I Sub-study II Sub-study III Sub-study IV

DesignSource of InformationArticles Longitudinal Study Cross-sectional Study Cross-sectional Study Grounded TheoryManager interview

Manager interview

Site observation

Records assessment

Literature review OHS Manager survey

OHS professional survey Employee interview

Article I A study of the effect of OHSAS 18001 on the occupational injury rateinIran Article II Development and validation of a safety climate scale for Manufacturing Industry Article III An Investigation of Safety Climate in OHSAS 18001 Certified and Non-Certified Organizations

Safety department records Employee survey Article IV Diagnosis of Poor Safety Culture as a Major Shortcoming in OHSAS 18001-Certified Companies Article V Factors that influence the Maintenance and Improvement of OHSAS 18001 in Adopting Companies: A Qualitative Study

(36)

3.1.1 Companies and participants Sub-Study I

The first sub-study conducted in six manufacturing companies. The companies were manufactures of beverages, chemical, and electrical products, as well as goods used in construction and agriculture. Table 2 provides information about the companies in sub- study 1. The occupational injury data were collected after getting permission from the companies.

Table 2. OHSAS 18001 certified year and average number of employees in the study

Companies The year of certification N

Certified 1 2002 427

Control 1 - 236

Control 2 - 140

Control 3 - 214

Sub-Study II

A total of 50 people (14 OHS faculty members, 10 OHS officers, and 26 employees) from the six companies participated in the employed content and face validity analyses of safety climate scale. The mean age of the faculty members was 40.7 (SD = 10.7), the OHS officers was 32.7 (SD = 7.00), and the employees was 35.5 (SD = 10). Another group of employees (n = 26) participated in the test-retest reliability analysis. The average age of this group was 41.85 (SD = 8.05) and the mean experience of them was 15.73 (SD = 7.65). A total of 269 employees participated in factor analysis and the examination of the effect of OHSAS 18001 implementation on safety climate. The mean age of the respondents was 37.63 years (SD = 7.01), and the mean working experience of them was 13.51 years (SD = 6.44).

(37)

Sub-Study III

This Sub-study consisted of two parts. The first part conducted in all six companies to compare the OHS practices between the certified and the control companies. The second part conducted in the certified companies to compare the OHSAS practices with the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard. A series of face-to-face interviews were conducted with key informants (n = 3) of OHSAS 18001 in the certified companies. In addition, a total of sixty-five people, including managers (n = 15), supervisors (n = 10), and randomly selected workers (n = 40) were shortly interviewed in the six companies.

Sub-Study IV

This Sub-study performed in the certified companies. A total of 16 managers (15 male and one female) from the companies participated in this Sub-study. All the participants participated in this study upon their personal acceptance.

3.1.2 Measures Sub-study I

Occupational injury data were collected from the occupational injury documents in the workplaces for each year during 1999–2009. The OIR was calculated (annual number of occupational injury/ annual number of employees × 100) for each company. A t-test was used for before–after certification comparisons of the OIR. Generalized linear mixed modeling (negative binomial regression) was applied for comparisons of certified and non-certified years among both certified and all companies. Finally, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the interaction between group (certified vs. control) and year (before vs. after certification).

(38)

Sub-study II

Safety climate scale development

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to find out the available safety climate questionnaires to the development of a safety climate scale. This review was resulted in a total of 662 safety climate items. After conducting a screening process for redundancy and general aim of our study, the number of items was reduced to 71. This preliminary scale translated to Farsi language (the official language in Iran). The OHS experts (faculty members and OHS officers) were asked to evaluate each item on three categories of 1) essential, 2) useful, but not essential, and 3) not necessary for examining the content validity in a quantitative way. Further, they were asked to write their comments about the ambiguity and clarity of the items for evaluation of face validity.

The employees asked to rank each safety climate items for relevancy, clarity, and simplicity using four-point Likert-type arrangements. All items were rated on five- points Likert-type scales with phrases of strongly disagree and strongly agree on points 1 and 5 to conduct reliability analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The final scale consisted of 45 items measuring seven safety climate dimensions.

Internal consistency reliability for the final 45-item scale was 0.96 and for dimensions ranged from 0.63 to 0.93. The result of the test-retest reliability analysis showed that there is no difference between safety climate scores (F(1, 25)= 0.60, P> 0.05), and the degree of reliability is high (ICC= 0.93). Figure 2 presents data flow for development and validation of safety climate scale.

Safety climate study

The developed scale was used to collect information about the employees’ shared perceptions concerning to the safety management in the companies. All 45 safety climate items were rated on five points Likert-type scales with verbal phrases of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree from 1 to 5 points.

(39)

Figure 2. Data flow in safety climate scale development, validation, and reliability analysis Sub-study III

The Method for Industrial Safety and Health activity Assessment (MISHA) was used to collect data regarding OHS practices in both certified and control companies in order to compare the OHS practices (Kuusisto, 2000). A checklist was prepared considering all requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard (revision 2007) to collect data about OHSAS 18001 practices in the certified companies. Activity rates (sum of scores for activity area / maximum available scores for activity area × 100) were calculated for each element of the OHSAS 18001 standard, MISHA, and for total questions of the completed checklists (sum of scores for activity areas/sum of maximum available scores for activity areas × 100).

Sub-study IV

The face-to-face semi-structured interviews in Azerbaijani Turkish were conducted with the participants. An interview guide used for discovering the factors that can impact the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001.

Test-retest Reliability

Construct Validity

Reliability Analysis Employees

Employees Literature Review

Screening

Preliminary Scale Design

Content Validity Face Validity

OHS Faculty Members

OHS Managers

Employees OHS Faculty

Members

Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems status and effectiveness in Manufacturing Industry

Abolfazl Ghahramani

Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Status and Effectiveness

in Manufacturing Industry

Supervisor

Reviewers

Opponents

Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgments

List of original publications

Abbreviations

1 Introduction

1.1 General Introduction

1.2 Safety management

2 Aims of the present study

3 Methods

3.1 Overall study design